1) The Battle of Britain and the Invasion of Britain (Sealion) were 2 different things : even if Britain had lost the Battle of Britain (for which there was no danger at all) ,Sealion would be impossible .

Agreed, even if the Luftwaffe had won the BoB the RAF would have operated from bases further north and opposed any landings further to that the Kriegsmarine was incapable of supporting and resupplying Sealion even with the Luftwaffe in control over the chanel as the Royal Navy was just too strong.

Quote:

2)If Britain was out, I see no reasons for Germany to attack the SU

Hitler was an ideologue and the entire focus of his ideology was living space in the east and the destruction of the Soviet Union there was no way in hell Germany was not going to attack Russia.

March 12th, 2014

BritinAfrica

I agree with LeEnfield regarding the Battle of Britain, I would also add the Battle of El Alamein, if Britain had lost North Africa the oil fields in the Middle east would have been wide open and would add another direction to attack the SU.

March 12th, 2014

MontyB

Quote:

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

I agree with LeEnfield regarding the Battle of Britain, I would also add the Battle of El Alamein, if Britain had lost North Africa the oil fields in the Middle east would have been wide open and would add another direction to attack the SU.

To be honest I think it was somewhat of a German flight of fancy that Rommel could have attacked Russia via the middle east, the logistics train from Berlin to Moscow was too much for the Germans, supplying a 4th spearhead into Russia via the middle east would have been a nightmare that was well beyond German capabilities.

Further to this the North African campaign was never going to be a winning one for Germany as no matter how far they went they still at some point would have had to have dealt with South Africa and India which were huge supply bases for Britain, basically no matter how far the Germans went in the region the British were falling back on stronger supply lines.

However I did mention that perhaps Lljadw had things around the wrong way in that all of the battles listed were decisive in one way or another but none of them singly determined the outcome of the war.

--

March 13th, 2014

BritinAfrica

If the British had been pushed out of North Africa the Med would have been under German and Italian control, logistics via Italy to the middle east to the SU could have been far easier then supplying via Eastern Europe.

March 14th, 2014

Hutchie

Never could figure why Germany declared war on the US , or Japan, for that matter. I always wondered what would have happened if we'd sided with the Germans and the Japs. hehe My family is still pissed at the Brits for burning down their farm and forcing them to live with the Indians back in the 1780's.

March 15th, 2014

MontyB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hutchie

Never could figure why Germany declared war on the US , or Japan, for that matter. I always wondered what would have happened if we'd sided with the Germans and the Japs. hehe My family is still pissed at the Brits for burning down their farm and forcing them to live with the Indians back in the 1780's.

The funny thing is that you may have got your wish had the Russians attacked the Poles first.

March 15th, 2014

LeEnfield

Hutchie.......You lost a farm my relations lost New York and Rhode Island, my cousin was William Brenton who owned both at one time

March 18th, 2014

lljadw

Quote:

Originally Posted by MontyB

To be honest I think it was somewhat of a German flight of fancy that Rommel could have attacked Russia via the middle east, the logistics train from Berlin to Moscow was too much for the Germans, supplying a 4th spearhead into Russia via the middle east would have been a nightmare that was well beyond German capabilities.

Further to this the North African campaign was never going to be a winning one for Germany as no matter how far they went they still at some point would have had to have dealt with South Africa and India which were huge supply bases for Britain, basically no matter how far the Germans went in the region the British were falling back on stronger supply lines.

However I did mention that perhaps Lljadw had things around the wrong way in that all of the battles listed were decisive in one way or another but none of them singly determined the outcome of the war.

As there were no battles which decided the outcome of WWII/WWI,one can not speak of decisive battles .

March 18th, 2014

lljadw

Quote:

Originally Posted by MontyB

Agreed, even if the Luftwaffe had won the BoB the RAF would have operated from bases further north and opposed any landings further to that the Kriegsmarine was incapable of supporting and resupplying Sealion even with the Luftwaffe in control over the chanel as the Royal Navy was just too strong.

Hitler was an ideologue and the entire focus of his ideology was living space in the east and the destruction of the Soviet Union there was no way in hell Germany was not going to attack Russia.

This is a strawman : the question is not if Hitler would/would not attack the SU,but if the motivation of Barbarossa was ideological ot military .

And,I stick to my claim that during the discussions about Barbarossa,there were no declarations by Hitler that are indicating that Barbarossa was ideologically motivated .

March 19th, 2014

LeEnfield

A lot of military aid went into Russia via the middle east as well as by sea via the Northern route. Had Germany taken North Africa first then it could have turned its full might onto Russia instead of fighting on two fronts. Germany lost as many troops in North Africa as they did in Stalingrad.